We look forward to your contributions and want to help you get off to a good strong start. Hopefully you will soon join the army of BattleTech Editors! If you need help formatting the pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions go to the Help section or the FAQ. If you can't find your answer there, please ask an Admin.

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the wiki:

Each and every page (articles, policies, projects, images, etc.) has its very own discussion/talk page, found on the tab line at the top of the page. This is a great place to find out what the community is discussing along that subject and what previous issues have already been solved.

If you want to play around with your new wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you. Don't worry: you won't break anything. A great resource for printing out is the Wiki Cheat Sheet.

Also consider writing something about yourself on your UserPage (marked as "LRichardson" at the top of the page, though only do this if you're registered). You'll go from being a 'redshirt' to a 'blueshirt,' with the respect of a more permanent member.

This is really helpful for the admins as we will know you're a human rather than a spambot and we won't block and delete you accidentally.

If you're not registered, then please consider doing so. At the very least, you'll have a UserPage that you own, rather than sharing one with the community.

In your Preferences, under the edit tab, consider checking Add pages I create to my watchlist and Add pages I edit to my watchlist, so that you can see how your efforts have affected the community. Check back on following visits by clicking on my watchlist.

If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random button in the sidebar, or check out the List of Wanted Pages. Or even go to Special Pages to see what weird stuff is actually tracked by this wiki.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date.

Having reviewed your additions to BattleTech (stuff I'd meant to do ages ago myself...) and to the Chameleon, I'm happy to note the quality of your edits. I have summarily awarded you a Substantial Addition Award. Keep up the good work! Frabby 09:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the comment. Ive been here 3 days and have two awards. Woot! ;) I'm hoping to focus on games, rules, technology and equipment in future contributions, especially concentrating on material from overlooked and/or vintage publications. I've always been more about the game itself than the fluff and I notice you guys have the cultural fluff down pretty good. I'll be making a trip to the starage unit soon to retrieve so many books from way back when. I've also gone and bought about 14 different BT books on Amazon. I am surprised how cheaply much of this stuff can be found. My wife thinks I am nuts though, wondering why I am doing this for a game I have not played in 15 years. Hehe.. -- LRichardson 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A little site note by myself, my wife talk always to me, why you put your spare time to sarna.net, and i give her the answer, i stard the hobby in my earlie years, and you are not in my live in this time ;), i love the BT universe, and i can't take my fingers from it, she don't understand this, but she accept it. Greetings--Doneve 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. Mine is just a bit happier that I am at least not spending the time playing video games anymore. I'm just going to omit the part about spending USD$400 on Amazon in the last 2 days to buy a game I already own but don't actually play. I might have to roll to avoid melee damage at that point... -- LRichardson 23:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Puuh, have you any defensive tactic to block the melee attack ;).--Doneve 18:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me consult the rulebooks. Hmm... Yup, these two dozen books, especially the hardcovers, might make for some good defense against a domestic infantry attack. Fibro-nemus armor. ; ) -- LRichardson 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you not blocked the attack , (dont underestimates the Ferro-Nail attacks), the Manei Domini can help you, to heal your wounds and give you some upgrades...^^:).--Doneve 21:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Holla, nicely work, i hope i can test the system in next time, (i hope my cousin have time;),for your 2d6... work i give you the first added Surreal Award , please holding in glory, Greetings. --Doneve 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you have expressed interest I will make a point of posting the converted tables before the weekend. That way you simply look at the table rather than try and go back and forth from d20 to 2d6 all the time. The main tables to be converted are the Hit Location table, the Cluster Hit table and the basic to-hit ranges. One note is that it is good to have a whole lot of d20's handy, especially grouped into colour groups. I currently have more than 100d20 to play. While I don't say you need that many, having 10 to 20 of them is a good idea depending on how distinguishable and/or groupable they are. I also have a completely new method of resolving critical hit locations that is much faster and reflects the idea that the less there is in a mech the less there is to hit inside it. Perhaps I will also post some pictures of how to make the rolls and how to group dice. -- LRichardson 21:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you must provide and adding your game system, rules, etc. stuff to the ClassicBattleTech Forum, the correspondence takes up a high level, and take some questions to the Aske the Writers section, i think Herb give you some goals.--Doneve 21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should. I doubt though that it would be of interest to anyone involved in official publication. The 2d6 norm is so deeply entrenched that there is just no escaping it. Using 1d20 eny time the rules call for a 2d6 roll is just something that has worked well for me over the years. Heck, in my notes I have a near total bottom up rework of BT in a couple of different manners but I don't see them being adopted in any major way.-- LRichardson 18:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Holla, nicely table work, in what a category you add this, or create you a new page with a new category to kick up this, i like your work, and support it, very very good.--20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of writing some descriptors for the tables and including them in a "House Rules" article. Are the tables sufficiently self explanatory for you? -- LRichardson 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutly, the tables works very well to me.--Doneve 08:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. If you do try the rules out I would love to hear how it went. While I have playtested them myself, obviously I knew already how they worked. I am curious how they are seen by someone the first time. -- LRichardson 23:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been giving the role of essays some thought the last few weeks and I think I've come up with a solution to my issues with them. I've put it here and would appreciate your perspective. Thanks. --Revanche(talk|contribs) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, it kills me that you're the exact first one to get one of these. If its any consolation, die roll permutations are an interest to me and something I periodically try to make myself smart on. I'll be storing this essay on my subpages. :( --Revanche(talk|contribs) 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, it doesn't at all surprise me that I am the first (being alphabetical and all). I'll be putting my stuff in my personal pages. Don't be too hard on yourself. I'm not one to let my social hobbies bother me. -- LRichardson 21:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how portals work, but it said I had to make a portal or they would delete my fannon?
Shockeray 22:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest talking to Revanche(talk|contribs). I am still trying to figure out such things myself. Basically though the consensus is that the BattleTech Wiki at Sarna is not a proper place for Fanon in general and non cannon works in the mainspace are to be deleted. The suggestion is to move such articles over to the BattleTech Fannon Wiki or into your user pages. To whom am I speaking? -- LRichardson 22:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like it if you could move it to BattleTech Fanon Wiki, though I would rather it stay on my page. is it possible to make sub pages under my page? cause I think its to much text to fit on one page... --Shockeray 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see your name now. Your stuff would be ideal for publishing over at the BattleTech Fanon Wiki. It was established specifically for your sort of narrative BattleTech based derivative fiction. You can find the BTFW here.

Assisting Shockeray‎ with transitioning his stories to subpages. I don't think he understands what I was saying, when I reached out to him on his talk page, so maybe a different voice is needed. Right now, he links to the original pages, which won't survive.

Would you be willing to create 'that' category, per the discussion with Frabby on the NCSC thread?

Categories work by identifying articles that are tagged. Refresh the category, and you'll see my essays show up (sub-page warts and all). Then look at the code I added to each page (at the bottom).--Revanche(talk|contribs) 18:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see you wrote to me at the same time I was writing to you.

If we do it the way you have demonstrated, that clearly goes /against/ the method in which categories are meant to work. However, categories remain the best way to do this (so that we don't have to create an 'index' page on the mainspace, which we aren't allowed to do). I'm fine with using your method.--Revanche(talk|contribs) 18:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I noticed our crosstalk. Basically the idea is simply to compel the author to deliberately add their link to the category page. -- LRichardson 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, the compliment: Chilton looks great. A well-crafted article, with plenty of links to related articles. It is a good example of how similar equipment articles should be developed.
Now, the hammer: the Chilton series, such as Chilton 360, Chilton 600, et al. These are, in essence, 'empty articles' and I'm going to presume, because of the effort you put into Chilton, they are also works-in-progress. But, if they are not, please take a look at Policy: Notability, specifically the part on Sub-Stub Pages. To sum it up, there is no information in those articles the reader would not have already known, by following the link to the page itself. There needs to be -at a minimum- links to other articles and a category. Example models on what the jump jets are installed would pump it up, as well as where the jets are produced.
I'm gonna to assume these are works-in-progress and will tag them accordingly. Thanks. --Revanche(talk|contribs) 13:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was more hoping that they would be a redirect but I did not know how to add one. That way a user clicking on all the Chilton 360 links in the various manufacturer and `mech pages would go to the main Chilton page. I just didn't think that each individual Chilton subtype page was worthy of its own whole article. On second thought though do you think that it would be best to break up the Chilton pages contents to each of those sub-stubs? -- LRichardson 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Last question first: in this case, no. I think the organization of the material you've worked with shows it presents well on one page. Normally, I'm all for every proper name having its own article, but I think you've demonstrated an argument Scaletail had about proper context, in this case. As for redirects: we have an app for that! The #R button above the edit field will help you with that. Just clear the field of all other information, punch that button and put in the 'parent' article title between the links and save. Let me know if you have any problems.--Revanche(talk|contribs) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha. That's exactly what I didn't know. One of us might want to put a note in the help and how to about redirects. I could not find that last night. -- LRichardson 20:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I even looked at that page. I just did not see it. I'll have to think about how make it more visible. I suspect it is really more just about my ADD... -- LRichardson 23:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hy i see your additions to the Chilton page, you need fluff, i can give you fluff, but please keep inmind, (english is not my native language), when i add fluff writing, it must become a cleanup, i hope you can take a helping part in this one, thanks.--Doneve 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do the fluff, I just put the placeholders in there for the moment so we are not duplicating tables. : ) If you like, just fill in the manufacturers and links and I can go in later and do a fluff sentance or two. I have the TRO's open on my desk. -- LRichardson 21:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem dude, i like reference notes, and citations, (seriously iam a little bit sadly about my fluff writing), but i compensate this litte matter in the Manufacturing Center Category, and other minor sections, take a look on my contributions and you know what i mean.--Doneve 21:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed how quick and thorough you are with references and citations. A word on those citations though, do note that when I am referencing a TRO rather than Objective raids I just list the name of the mech being referenced rather than mentioning that it is components made by X on Y. This is because the TRO doesn't directly mention that it is manufactured there whereas the Objective Raids sourcebook does. -- LRichardson 21:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think all citations targed a subject, and i think, my method works by a cit., ref., ref.note ect., i hope i don't understand you, my day was long, and i look on my clock it's 00.01, sorry i hope this words come to rude to you, greetings.--Doneve 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not coming across as rude. I know English is not your language, so I know your grammar can be misleading. I was just trying to note in the citations when the reference directly referred to a component being produced (such as in Objective Raids) or when the reference is about the `Mech itself. -- LRichardson 22:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BING, i know what you mean, thanks for helping.--Doneve 22:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

hey, you've been helping clean out the Jump Jet page, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the Technology Project I staarted to help clean out a slew of other articles in need of the same kind of help.--BirdofPrey 23:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Had to read up on a real-world military contractor, when I came across this Wikipedia page: w:Textron Marine & Land Systems. Now, it is a stub and I think our corporate articles have things this does not, but the infobox caught my attention. Anyways, just putting this here with you, to see if it provides any inspiration.--Revanche(talk|contribs) 18:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Holla, i see you become a part of BT:WP project team, i clean up at this time the skeleton Jump Jet articles, my fluff writing is poor, when you can help out where this a great goal, i am very appriciated, greetings.--Doneve 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. In fact right now I am writing fluff for Anderson Propulsion. You might take a look at the Rawlings and Northrup pages.-- LRichardson 00:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep i am in work on the Rawlings page, Northrup come as next.--Doneve 00:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice to have you back on sarna. I notice you're update on your LRichardson/Sanbox page, please keep in mind the Nearby System table New Oslo has wrong coordinates etc, we revamp at this time the various planet articles we the new article layout take a look here BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul, we have a new tremendous spreadsheet from Volt with new extrapolated coordinates.--15:12, 19 February 2015 (PST)

No worries on that point. I assume this is Doneve? The table in my sandbox has more to do with the formatting of the table itself than the contents of it. I am playing around with tables trying to come up with a way of cleaning up the entries for the various technology pages. In particular I was trying to see if I could make that table sortable. Many of the technology pages have large tables of what is being made where and by whom and they are largely unreadable when it comes to basic tech, like the Medium Laser. I'm trying to come up with a convention that allows some better searching of those tables to make them useful for people planning campaigns etc. Take a look at the edit on Medium Laser that shows the new table and compare it to the old table in the history. -- LRichardson 15:21, 19 February 2015 (PST)